This is another crazy idea that fails to consider the second order
ramifications. If you raise the cost of raising a child, you will have fewer
children, and fewer future workers to support Medicaid and Medicare costs of the
older generations. Second, hitting families in the pocketbook when they are
most financially vulnerable will only increase the demand for subsidized school
lunches, Medicaid, food stamps, healthcare, etc., etc, as these families will no
longer be able to avoid basic necessities.

Primary and secondary
education is a service with huge positive externalities for communities and the
state as a whole. Those who are single or empty nesters benefit hugely from the
investment in children by parents AND taxpayers. If more money is needed for
education, it is better to spread the costs evenly, than to hit families with
children when they can least afford it.

Ranking dead last in per-pupil spending--not a definitive measure of education
quality, but a very large factor--is certainly making some large companies think
twice about investing in Utah.

And for families who essentially pay
no tax because of all these exemptions, this would figuratively and literally
make them "invested" in their children's education--maybe if this
was the case, parents would take their jobs as education facilitators more
seriously (getting their kids to complete homework, respect teachers, dress
appropriately, attend class, etc.).

The word tax "exemption" means that instead of families with children
paying their fair share of taxes that because in many cases they deliberately
chose to have a child, the current state policy is to "exempt" them.
However, because of the large families in Utah, the burden of paying for taxes
has shifted towards single people, smaller families having to subsidize other
families's children's education. While it can be argued that
everybody benefits from the public education of all children, unfortunately, the
direct benefits to large families is likely greater in the long run for the
larger family than for those without children or smaller families. For parents
who choose to have children, it is important that they accept the responsibility
that goes along with having children and that includes paying their fare share
for that child's education. Exemptions are unfair for the rest of us.

Per child tax deductions are socialism and nothing more. They're
government sponsored social engineering that true conservatives despise. The
concept of personal responsibility should dictate that those who use services
should pay for those services.

So Republicans scream for a flatter tax system that eliminates give-aways to one
group at the expense of others...And the Dems offer you something that makes our
code flatter.... I can see your heads spinning from here.

"Per child tax deductions are socialism and nothing more." This is an
odd statement (how about: "picking up the trash is socialism and nothing
more"), but I assume this respondent thinks "socialism" is a dirty
word. I obviously don't. From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs. Senator Jones' measure would make things tighter
for a lot of kids. I don't support her proposal. If she hopes to help her
own party, she's sadly mistaken.

If I am the only one who has a vested
interest in educating my children, then I should be the only one who reaps the
benefit from creating the next generation of taxpayers. By your logic, the
social security payments, medicare benefits, city services, military budget, all
of those wonderful things my children will be paying for with their tax dollars,
should proportionately flow back to those of us who made all that possible by
raising an educated generation.

Those of you that do not want to
contribute to that future, should have no claim on that future. When you retire,
your retirement should be funded by you, not my children. Your medicare benefit
should be paid for by you, not my children. Sadly, that is not going to be much
because the government long ago found they could buy your vote by paying out all
those funds immediately instead of saving it for you. The government lives hand
to mouth. Without my tax paying generation of children paying for your future,
your future looks pretty bleak.

Thank you, Senator Jones, for continuing to fight for solutions to the larger
problems in Utah.

Personally, I'm all for personal
responsibility and minimizing unduly burdensome social engineering wherever
possible. This is a step in the right direction - even better than the
previously proposed Jones-Mascaro bills from several years ago.

Senator Jones is on track.If large families provide workers to pay into
Social Security and Medicare, don't they also tax our natural resources?

At a time when everyone wants gigantic McMansions, where do we put them
(and how to do provide resources) when families are growing exponentially faster
than our earth can support? If you have four kids, and they each have four
kids, and they each have four kids -- that 64 grandchildren to provide for.
THINK, people!

One solution to Social Security and Medicare is to
raise the retirement age. When the systems were devised, people generally
lived five years longer. Now, they live 25 years. Another solution
is fair wages, so that people CAN support their own families. Where do you all
think the jobs are going to come from?

I have to admit things have changed over the years. Having a large family, even
in Utah, isn't seen quite the same way it was years ago when such people
were deemed to be role models. Still, I would be surprised how far a bill like
this got. It still will be seen as a "tax increase."

Before childless couples, or small families, bemoan their social burdens, do
remember that those "herds" of children will be paying for government
subsidies of the elderly, in their time of need.

To me, the
definition of civilization is how well children, and those in need, are cared
for and valued. America is well-invested in the pride cycle. We all know how
that ends. And, for the record, it always begins with the rich and powerful.

You make rotten sausage, Sen Jones. Your combination of taxing and spending
changes stinks in my opinion. If you'd try a separate approach with your 2
ideas, your taxation idea would most certainly get voted down. If you'd
try to improve education funding other ways you could get a winner; such as
capping compensation to about 10-15% above the average teacher's
compensation - admin / supv work is not worth the extra money we've become
accustomed to paying; such as equalizing budgets / compensation across rich and
poor school districts - we need to give opportunity to all our children, not
just the children of the well off; such as cut spending for inter-school sports
- fans should pay for inter-school sports, not taxpayers.